Re: Syntax for multiple slurs per Voice?

[David Nalesnik]

Hi Trevor,

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Trevor Bača <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi David (Nalesnik),
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:49 AM, David Nalesnik <address@hidden>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Trevor,
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Trevor Bača <address@hidden>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm coming late to this discussion, but potentially *very* excited about
>>> what this might mean. Will the available of spanner IDs mean that a single
>>> voice will (eventually) be able to carry multiple *text spanners*???
>>>
>>> This would be incredibly useful in my own scores (and probably also in
>>> the scores of very many other composers who work with simultaneous
>>> continuous transitions). I've attached a PNG of an example from a recent
>>> cello piece. The score is in LilyPond, but the engraving required multiple
>>> (redundant) invisible markup voices. Would be so elegant to be need only a
>>> single voice.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I recently rewrote Text_spanner_engraver, incorporating 'spanner-id to
>> allow an unlimited number of TextSpanners per voice.  The entry method isn't
>> particularly pretty (basically it's equivalent to what you had to do with
>> slurs before David Kastrup came up with the current solution).
>>
>> I'd like to get this into the codebase, but I'm unsure if I need to port
>> it to C++.  Also, there's a chance another engraver to bind the simultaneous
>> spanners might be needed (as piano pedal lines are bound by an alignment
>> engraver).
>>
>> Attached is a more recent version than the one found here:
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/lilypond-user%40gnu.org/msg105470.html
>>
>> Hope this helps!
>
>
>
> I'm (finally!) working at integrating your alternateTextSpannerEngraver. My
> testing so far shows that it allows for very much of what I'm looking for
> (ie, multiple text spanners overlapping each other in a single voice).
>
> Two questions:
>
> 1. Is the version you attached as "text-spanner-id.ly" (way back in October
> 2015!) still the most recent version of your work?

Ugh -- I was going to say that a (perhaps) more current version is on
GitHub, but I seem to have never created a repository for it...  Old
age.

So I guess your version is the newest :(

Let me know if you run into any difficulties, and I'll be happy to
create that newer version.

>
> 2. Was there ever any movement towards integrating the functionality of your
> rewritten engraver into the Lily's primary codebase? (Back in October 2015
> David Kastrup wrote that he was also thinking through how multiple spanners
> might be integrated, too, if I remember correctly.)
>

I'm not aware of anything new in the codebase.  I thought that a
recent GSoC project touched on this topic, but I don't know what if
anything made it into LilyPond.

DN